Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Legality of Trump's IEEPA Tariffs

High Court to Scrutinize Presidential Tariff Authority

The United States Supreme Court is poised to hear oral arguments on November 5, 2025, in a landmark case challenging the authority of former President Donald Trump to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This review follows lower court rulings that found Trump's use of IEEPA for tariffs exceeded presidential powers.

The Court has consolidated three cases for review: V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump, Oregon v. US Department of Homeland Security, and Learning Resources v. Trump. These cases stem from tariffs implemented by the Trump administration, including a universal 10% tariff on imports from countries not subject to other sanctions, which took effect on April 5, 2025. Additional tariffs were also imposed on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China, citing concerns over fentanyl trafficking and migration.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act at Issue

Former President Trump invoked IEEPA, specifically Sections 1701 and 1702, as the legal basis for these tariffs. This act grants the president authority to act during a declared national emergency to address 'any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' The administration argued that IEEPA's provision to 'regulate importation' encompasses the power to impose tariffs.

However, challengers contend that IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs and that no previous president had ever utilized the act to impose such duties. Legal experts highlight that while other trade laws explicitly authorize tariffs, IEEPA lacks similar specific language or requirements for investigations and findings.

Lower Court Decisions and the 'Major Questions Doctrine'

The legal challenge began in the Court of International Trade (CIT), which initially ruled against the government, deeming the tariffs unlawful. This decision was subsequently upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a 7-4 vote. The Federal Circuit concluded that 'IEEPA's grant of presidential authority to 'regulate' imports does not authorize the tariffs' imposed by the Trump administration. These rulings were stayed, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending the Supreme Court's review.

A significant aspect of the appeals court's decision was its reliance on the 'major questions doctrine.' This legal principle dictates that if Congress intends to delegate authority for decisions of 'vast economic and political significance,' it must provide 'clear congressional authorization' through a statute.

Implications for Presidential Power and Trade Policy

The Supreme Court's upcoming decision carries substantial implications for the scope of presidential power in trade matters and could potentially lead to refunds of the IEEPA tariffs already collected. It is important to note that this case specifically addresses tariffs imposed under IEEPA and does not impact other duties, such as those levied under Section 232 or Section 301.

Historically, the closest parallel to Trump's actions was President Richard Nixon's 1971 10% import surcharge, though Nixon did not explicitly invoke IEEPA's predecessor statute for that measure. In October 2025, the Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 51-47 to block Trump's global 'reciprocal' tariffs, though this action was largely symbolic.